Syntactic Productivity

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Summary 74 • The nominative subject construction is highest in type frequency of all argument structure constructions containing two-place predicates • The Nom-Acc subconstruction is approximately 58–64% of nominative subject predicates • The Nom-Dat subconstruction is approximately 34–35% of nominative subject predicates • Both constructions exist at a high level of schematicity, although the semantic domain of the Nom-Acc construction is much wider than that of the Nom-Dat construction, and hence its productivity domain is also larger • Both constructions are productively assigned to borrowed verbs, by Icelandic speakers, within their semantic domains Bergen Jóhanna Barðdal June 5, 2008
Summary 75 • This case assignment clearly takes place on the basis of low-level constructions, either verb-specific constructions or verb-subclassspecific constructions • This fact is problematic for generative approaches, exactly as the fact that the proportion of Nom-Acc and Nom-Dat verbs among borrowed verbs mirrors their proportion in language use • Full productivity and analogy are two sides of the same coin • The role of token frequency for productivity is inverse to the role of type frequency for productivity Bergen Jóhanna Barðdal June 5, 2008
Page 1 and 2:
Syntactic Productivity: Extending A
Page 3 and 4:
Overview 3 • Productivity • New
Page 5 and 6:
Senses and Synonyms of “productiv
Page 7 and 8:
Examples of Different Usages (2) 7
Page 9 and 10:
Tomasello’s (2000) Usage 9 • Pr
Page 11 and 12:
Making Sense of Different Senses of
Page 13 and 14:
Measurements of productivity (1) 13
Page 15 and 16:
Predicting productivity 15 8) The t
Page 17 and 18:
“Two kinds of ‘creativity’”
Page 19 and 20:
Types, tokens and patterns in morph
Page 21 and 22:
Definition of syntactic productivit
Page 23 and 24: The inverse correlation between typ
Page 25 and 26: The productivity cline 25 Bergen J
Page 27 and 28: High type frequency vs. open schema
Page 29 and 30: Degrees of productivity 29 • Assu
Page 31 and 32: Modified version of C&C’s gradien
Page 33 and 34: strung vs. swept verbs 33 • It is
Page 35 and 36: Token frequency’s contribution to
Page 37 and 38: The inverse correlation between typ
Page 39 and 40: Summary (2) 39 • There two notion
Page 41 and 42: Case study 1: New verbs in Icelandi
Page 43 and 44: Type frequencies 43 • Nominative
Page 45 and 46: Corpus count 45 • Modern Icelandi
Page 47 and 48: Nom-Acc construction 47 • Basic e
Page 49 and 50: Nom-Dat construction 49 • Basic e
Page 51 and 52: Animate vs. inanimate reference of
Page 53 and 54: Nom-Gen 53 Bergen Jóhanna Barðdal
Page 55 and 56: Recent borrowings in Icelandic (1)
Page 57 and 58: Recent borrowings in Icelandic (3)
Page 59 and 60: Productivity is associated with rul
Page 61 and 62: Bergen Jóhanna Barðdal June 5, 20
Page 63 and 64: The productivity of Nom-Acc and Nom
Page 65 and 66: Low-level verb-class generalization
Page 67 and 68: The productivity of Nom-Acc and Nom
Page 69 and 70: Two sides of the same coin 69 • O
Page 71 and 72: Choice of model items for analogica
Page 73: Inverse correlation between type an
Page 77 and 78: Five Screen Beans silhouettes 77 Be
Page 79 and 80: Lexical and semantic priming 79 Ber
Page 81 and 82: Statistics 81 The differences betwe
Page 83 and 84: Results (2) 83 • This suggests th
Page 87 and 88: Generative vs. usage-based construc
Page 89 and 90: Case study 3: New Verbs of instrume
Page 91 and 92: Why Icelandic? 91 • 86% of the Ic
Page 93 and 94: Constructional Choices 93 (4) … f
Page 95 and 96: The Questionnaire 95 • Ég (e)mei
Page 101 and 102: Question 101 • Why is the Caused-
Page 105 and 106: Proportion of motion verbs among No
Page 107 and 108: Conclusion: Analogy vs. High type f
Page 109 and 110: Summary 109 • All three new verbs
show all

Syntactic Productivity

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?